Judgment :- 1. The above Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 26.4.99 made in A.S. No. 34/98 on the file of Principal District Court, Coimbatore confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.12.97 made in O.S. No. 3079/96 on the file of District Munsif, Coimbatore. The question of law that arises for consideration in the Second Appeal is, “Whether the Courts below are right in maintaining the suit in respect of the relief of declaration declaring as null and void the demand made by the appellants in respect of unauthorised additional load of electricity connection taken by the respondent herein when there is inbuilt machinery available to adjudicate the issue under the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board terms and conditions?” 2. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of the Second Appeal are as follows: The respondent herein is a service connection holder and obtained a service connection in the year 1991 for a sanctioned load of 100 HP with 6000 watts. The respondent herein connected 33 KVAR capacitor in his textile mill. In the year 1992, the respondent applied for additional load of 20 HP and the matter of giving additional load was under consideration. On 11.6.93 the 4th appellant, the Assistant Executive Engineer, Anti Power Theft squad inspected the premises of the respondent and found that service connection is loaded with additional capacity of 14.68 HP which is unauthorised and against the provisions of the terms and conditions framed under the Indian Electricity Act. Immediately a mahazar has been prepared and got attested by one of the partners. Thereupon on 8.7.93 the 3rd appellant, the Assistant Executive Engineer, Coimbatore Electricity Distribution Circle issued a notice for the unauthorised power connection and an enquiry has been conducted and ultimately the 2nd appellant, the Executive Engineer by his order dated 20.7.94 arrived at the excess consumption charges to Rs. 59,.292/- and demanded the same. The respondent herein, on receipt of the same, filed a suit in O.S. No. 3079/96 for a declaration declaring that the order demanding the sum of Rs. 59,292/- is null and void and also consequential injunction restraining the appellants from in any way disconnecting the service connection for the non-payment of the demand so made. 59,.292/- and demanded the same. The respondent herein, on receipt of the same, filed a suit in O.S. No. 3079/96 for a declaration declaring that the order demanding the sum of Rs. 59,292/- is null and void and also consequential injunction restraining the appellants from in any way disconnecting the service connection for the non-payment of the demand so made. The suit was resisted by the appellants herein that the suit itself is not maintainable and that all the formalities under the provisions of the Act and the terms and conditions for the supply of electricity have been scrupulously followed in arriving at the sum as determined by the second appellant. In order to prove the case the respondent herein has marked as many as 19 documents and examined himself as P.W.I. On behalf of the department the mahazar prepared on 16.6.93 has been marked as Ex.D1 and two officers of the department have been examined as D.Ws.1. and 2 with this pleadings the parties went in trial. The trial Court, after taking into consideration of the evidence, both oral and documentary, made available before it and upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel on either side, granted the decree as prayed for. The department not satisfied with the decree passed against them carried the matter on appeal to the District Court, Coimbatore only to have the seal of approval of the decree of the trial Court. Having failed in the Appellate Court also the department is before this Court in Second Appeal assailing the judgment and decree of the Courts below. 3. As stated already, the only one rather the substantial question of law to be decided in the case is as to the maintainability of the suit in respect of the demand made by the department for unauthorised excess connection. The terms and conditions of supply of electricity are framed by invoking the powers under Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act. 1948 (Central Act 54/48). The terms and conditions are the Code by themselves in respect of requisition, supply of electricity categories of supply, tariff, earnest money deposit, current consumption deposit, installation of capacitors, billing and payment, unauthorised supply of energy, violation of conditions of service connections and further providing for appellate provisions. 1948 (Central Act 54/48). The terms and conditions are the Code by themselves in respect of requisition, supply of electricity categories of supply, tariff, earnest money deposit, current consumption deposit, installation of capacitors, billing and payment, unauthorised supply of energy, violation of conditions of service connections and further providing for appellate provisions. Paragraph 6.01 provides that on detection of violation, the officer authorised to issue show-cause notice as per clause 10 of this Schedule, will issue a notice to the consumer asking him to remove the violation within 24 hours or seven days as the case may be, failing which the supply will be disconnected and to show-cause why the compensation charges should not be levied for having committed the violation. Reply to show-cause notice shall be sent by the consumer within seven days from the date of receipt of notice. Paragraph 6.02 provides that if the consumer fails to send the explanation within the stipulated time or if the explanation is not satisfactory, the officer authorised to issue the show-cause notice will sent a report to the Assessing Officer. The officer authorised to make assessment will, if convinced that there has been a violation, assess the compensation charges payable and intimate it to the consumer directing him to pay the charges in four equal monthly instalments. Paragraph 6.03 provides for an appellate remedy to the effect that if the consumer desires to prefer an appeal to the appellate authority, he may do so within 60 days from the date of receipt of the assessment notice issued to him. Thus a complete alternate machinery is available under the Act. It is now very well settled that when a special enactment creates rights and liabilities to the parties and the alternative machineries are provided therein, even if there is no explicit provision for bar of jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is impliedly barred. This is the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the Constitution Bench judgment in Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh {(1968) 22 STC 416} which has been reaffirmed by the nine Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India {(1998) 111 STC 467}. This is the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the Constitution Bench judgment in Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh {(1968) 22 STC 416} which has been reaffirmed by the nine Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India {(1998) 111 STC 467}. The point in issue is also directly covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Punjab State Electricity Board v. Ashwani Kumar { (1997) 5 SCC 120 } wherein the provisions of the Punjab State Electricity Board Act has been considered by the Supreme Court and held that the suit is not maintainable. 4. In view of the settled position of law, The question of law framed as to the maintainability has to be answered in favour of the appellants herein and by necessary corollary, the decree granted by the trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court has to be set aside and the suit has to be dismissed and it is dismissed. However, it is open to the respondent herein, if he is so advised to invoke the appellate remedy within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the appeal is filed within the time granted, the Appellate Authority is directed to dispose of the appeal within a month thereafter. With this observation, the Second Appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. No 17711/99 is closed.